Art & Entertainment

Other Indias Lost

Hindi's monopoly has led to an impoverished cinematic language

Advertisement

Other Indias Lost
info_icon

Discussions and discourses on Indian cinema often tend to overlook its essential plurality and solely centre round Hindi cinema. Paradoxically, when it comes to the claim of its huge output, the number one position in global production, the reference obviously is to the sum total of films being made in about 20 Indian languages including English. And Hindi cinema hardly makes up for one-fifth (at times one-sixth) of the total number of films made in the country! Out of a total production of 697 films, the share of Hindi films was just 117 in ‘97. Its position was third in size, with the first and second places going to Telugu and Tamil films.

Advertisement

It was for historical and mainly political reasons that Hindi cinema came to be known as the Indian cinema from the start. In the fight against a mighty colonial power, we had to project one Indian language - Hindi - as our voice of solidarity as opposed to English. This was, after all, mostly symbolic and only one of the many strategies like the swadeshi movement and the satyagraha. Then, after independence, the other Indian languages (crudely termed ‘regional languages’) which boast of a longer history and richer literary tradition - were assigned permanent subordinate roles. This legacy is something that is happily shared and revelled in by our cinema as well. In retrospect, it was the fervour and thrust of the nationalist struggle that gave an impetus to the Hindi language productions, helping them hold sway over the exhibition sector in the country. But as to the actual content, being non-specific and non-committed to any particular culture, cause, place, people or problems, and endowed with familiar and predictable plots strung together in dances and songs, this cinema was lazily accepted by audiences at large. Here was a cinema born and brought up to ‘entertain’ everyone, no matter if one is juvenile or grown-up, illiterate or erudite.

Advertisement

With its wide reach and popularity, the influence of Hindi cinema is something that cannot but be reckoned with. Whether on the big screen or on the small electronic tube, its presence now is all-pervasive and sadly inescapable. Its influence on other language cinemas, alas, is so strong that it has managed to engender clones all over the subcontinent. Not that this cinema has not seen its heyday, particularly in the ‘50s; but the slide has been rather steady and steep from the works of such stalwarts of the romantic period as Guru Dutt, Bimal Roy and Raj Kapoor. However, this should not make us forget the fact that even as they were lauded everywhere, these filmmakers had become increasingly ‘difficult’ for the ‘industry’ to contain.

It’s not surprising that Pather Panchali, the very first wholly accomplished work in Indian cinema, saw the light of day in West Bengal - far removed from the corrupting influences of tinseltown. Ray’s works were marked by a distinct cultural flavour at once humanistic and uncompromising. The world at large lost no time in recognising his art as the one that represented the real Indian cinema. It’s history that his contemporaries and peers, Ritwik Ghatak and Mrinal Sen, went on to further widen the horizons of our cinema.

New cinematic expressions in languages like Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Assamese, Manipuri, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bhojpuri, Tamil, Tulu, Telugu, Urdu and Hindi (as distinct from the pan-Indian commercial cinema) were soon to spring up. Writers, painters, theatre practitioners and film professionals who were emboldened by the ‘Bengali renaissance’ came to the fore.The Film Finance Corporation to a great extent played the role of the catalyst. And thus was born our breed of the ‘New Wave’. The new wave did produce a whole lot of worthwhile films. Shorn of stars, spectacle and glamour, they were mostly rooted in their own respective literatures and wore a look and feel that was authentic and truthful.

But the enthusiasm was quick to get sullied as the unsympathetic exhibitor chose to shut his doors on the fresh entrants. The system wouldn’t entertain anything new or unfamiliar. If the ‘70s and ‘80s saw a real effervescence of new talent, the ‘90s witnessed its ebbing out in the face of a closed system and the new demands and pressures of an upstart electronic media. Whereas our television keeps drawing on cinema for its very sustenance, it does not concede its obligation to reinvest in return. Everywhere else in the world, television is a trusted partner in quality film production. Cinema is revered as a cultural and artistic expression and television duly plays the promoter’s role. Standing as we are on the threshold of the new millennium, what has our cinema got to offer the world?

Advertisement

Let us face it. Our film ‘industry’, which enjoyed undue monopolistic protection and unquestioning patronage for too long, will in all likelihood be knocked out of its complacency when, not too distant in the future, Hollywood strikes with its well-tested ‘products’ that are innovative and market-friendly in their Hindi, Telugu, Tamil and other avatars. The obese and disorderly industry, sluggish as it is, will be ill-prepared to face up to the new challenges thus posed. Let me hasten to add that this is not a conjectural indictment. Behold the phenomenal box office success of the dubbed versions of Jurassic Park and the other lot tested and proven on our soil.

Advertisement

Adoor Gopalakrishnan is widely acclaimed as India's finest living filmmaker

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement